“Cassation” acquits defendants of seizing 390 thousand dirhams

The Court of Cassation has ruled to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling sentencing two defendants accused of seizing 390,000 dirhams from a woman, after deceiving her into believing they had won a sum of money and seizing her bank details, to one month in prison and deportation from the country.

The Public Prosecution charged the seven defendants with seizing a sum of money belonging to the victim, fraudulently, by making her believe that she had won a sum of money. They were able to deceive her and get her to provide her bank account information, via the Internet. The prosecution requested that they be punished in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Law on Combating Information Technology Crimes.

The court of first instance ruled in absentia against the second, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants, and in the presence of the first, third and seventh defendants, to punish each of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants for the crime of fraud and deception with imprisonment for a period of one month and deportation from the country, obligating them to pay the due fee, and acquitting the seventh defendant of what is attributed to him.

The first and third convicts appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form, but in substance to reject it, uphold the appealed ruling, and oblige the appellants to pay the fees. The ruling did not satisfy the appellants, so they appealed it before the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation.

The appellants complained that the appealed judgment was incorrect in applying the law, insufficient in its reasoning, corrupt in its evidence, and a violation of the right to defense, pointing out that the appealed judgment had convicted them based on the reasons of the appealed judgment, and that the latter did not explain the elements of the crime for which it convicted them, the extent of their connection to the fraud incidents, the role of each of them in the manner of fraud, the fraudulent methods they used, and the link between them and the victim.

The appeal memorandum pointed out that the complainant’s statements were not sufficient to prove the crime against the appellants, and that the investigation report was limited to identifying the beneficiary of the amounts transferred from the complainant’s account to the appellants’ account, and that the appealed ruling did not address the documents submitted by the appellants and did not respond to them and ignored their request to hear witnesses for the defence present at the session, which renders the ruling flawed and requires its annulment.

The court indicated that the victim claimed that an unknown person had defrauded her by making her believe that she had won a sum of money and forced her to reveal and provide him with her bank account information, and seized an amount of 390 thousand dirhams from her account, while the investigations did not reveal the identity of the person who forced the victim to provide her account information. The appellants explained the reason for the transfer, the source of the transferred amounts, their reason, how they were transferred, and the purpose of it, while the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants had committed the crime of fraud or that there was a relationship between the appellants and the victim.

The Court of Cassation noted that the records of the conviction judgment do not show that the appellants committed the crime attributed to them, which is contacting an unknown person to seize the victim’s money. Therefore, it is flawed and requires its annulment. The circumstances of the case also raise doubts due to the lack of evidence. Therefore, the appellants must be acquitted of the charge attributed to them and the insurance amount must be returned. The court ruled to annul the appealed judgment, cancel the appealed judgment, and acquit the appellants of the charge attributed to them and return the insurance amount.

The appeal memorandum pointed out that the complainant’s statements were not sufficient to prove the crime against the appellants.